Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 16:58 (988 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.

dhw: Not only do I agree, but I have also pointed out repeatedly that ALL your authoritative statements about your God’s purposes, methods and nature are guesswork, including all those which you use to dismiss alternatives to your guesses.

dhw: …you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

DAVID: Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions.

dhw: The whole process of lumping means all life is descended from bacteria. Splitting means that life evolved into different largely unconnected branches. You agree that humans are just one branch, and most extinct life forms and foods have no role to play in current life and had no connection with humans, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms and foods were part of your God’s goal to evolve (= design) humans and their food.

You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: […] you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.
Your reply consists of one evasion after another:

DAVID: Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally.

dhw: The same argument applies to the complexity of all life forms – hence the theory of ID. I am not disputing the logic of this argument.

DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

dhw: It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.